Dave,
(This exchange is mostly a repeat of a mail Dave sent to the
saag list in [1], to which I responded in [2]. But its fair
enough to comment to this list as well I guess.)
You say "promptly decided." That is incorrect. I had sent
a mail to this list last Friday, at the end of the extended
IETF LC, saying that was the plan. (See [2])
Your "blanket dismissal" point is nonsense. There were
literally hundreds of mails about this draft, many of them
from you and many responding to you. I have concluded that
you are just in the rough when it comes to the non-editorial
comments you have made on -04. (All of which you also made
a number of times before I believe and all of which have
been responded to by the author or others as far as I can
see.)
Yes, the diff between -03 and -04 is unusually large. However,
I consider it editorial and for a short informational document
like this, while that's unusual, I think it is ok. And the
changes as far as I can see do reflect the list discussion
since -03 was published.
There is also at this point maybe more risk of damage being
done by endless editorial nitpicking than by proceeding to
IESG evaluation with text that I believe captures the rough
consensus, which is not very rough at all for the meat of
the topic, but is certainly rougher for the specific text.
S.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05528.html
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05533.html
On 27/08/14 05:12, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
A new version of the draft was issued today.
And the Sponsoring AD promptly decided that there is IETF consensus on
the draft, scheduling it for the next IESG telechat. The Sponsoring AD
has deemed all changes since the -02 version is minor.
This is spite of the fact that /nearly every word/ of the newest draft
is new.
Yes, really:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-03&difftype=--hwdiff&submit=Go!&url2=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04
I did another detailed review of the draft:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05531.html
including:
Summary:
The paper defines and explains flexible approach to the use of
encryption on the Internet. It assigns the term 'opportunistic
security' to this term.
The latest draft has extensive changes from the previous version.
Although many of the changes are quite helpful, the document still
suffers from confusing or unexplained terminology and some unfortunately
initial organization.
A number of points from previous reviews have not been addressed.
The paper continues to freely make strong assertions, without
providing any substantiation or even, in some cases, explanation. At a
minimum, every term that is used, every assertion that is made and
anything else that derives from Internet experience should be documented.
Concerns with the term "opportunistic security" persist. It is both
vague and overblown, given the specific technical point it is meant to
address. That concern is about encryption and the term should make that
clear.
The paper still needs extensive revision before it should be
considered for publication.
Blanket dismissal of substantive concerns is not the usual approach to
work in the IETF.
d/